Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is consensus to not keep this. Most "keep" opinions do not make much sense in the context of our policies and guidelines. Less clear is how to not keep it. "Keep & Merge" and "Delete & Merge" are both mutually exclusive and are therefore disregarded. There is some support for merging, but it is not clear what could or should be merged where to. Redirect isn't really advocated here, probably because the title isn't an obvious search term. As a result, plain "delete" is probably the most consensual option. Sandstein 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whilst it maybe sourced we do not have to have page (and certainly something that is not much more than a list) on every view on every subject. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete or Weak redirect to George_Floyd_protests   Kadzi   (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather we did not add a huge list of random celelbs to this article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to change my mind to agree with you, having seen (and proposed for deletion) other similar articles to do with the riots etc, any credible celebrity actions will automatically be included into the actual articles. Changed views accordingly.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I do not believe this should be deleted, as it captures the individual reactions to these protests, which is something that is not often captured or paid much attention to during large historical events. It's not crucially important, but I believe it has value and especially should not be deleted. Uelly (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This practice is very common when it comes to endorsements of political candidates, and this in fact goes into more detail. The movement that is presently going on is important to report on, and this support is part of that. I would not have spent so long on the page if I didn't believe that.

I specifically created this new page because I did not want to have specific names fill too much of the original. Instead, I wanted it to have its own space in order to discuss how the entertainment industry as a whole -- not only celebrities -- has been responding to this pivotal time. It's also why I have tried to add details on each figure's stance, and not merely their name, which is in fact more detailed than presidential endorsement list pages.

I additionally plan to expand this page in the coming days to include more total content about what is happening. There is controversy over certain facets of the responses, and I have yet to see much in the way of opposition to the protests within the entertainment industry. I will be curious to see more in the coming days. Making a page for any currently occurring event is difficult. Hopefully we can make this page even better as a community. PickleG13 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political candidate.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in many ways, more arguments to be made for having a social movement and the support given (which here is totaling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and many protests) than for a political candidate generally. It is a similar issue. PickleG13 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative of new Response page

While I think and will continue to defend this page as being a valid one that contributes well to Wikipedia's mission as well as the public interest, there could also be a possibility of creating a new page titled Response to George Floyd protests, which could include this plus various commentators and politicians. Responses by high profile figures, verified by reputable sources, are rather crammed into the original. Creating a new page of this kind could also solve the problem. I wish to work with the community to find the best solution that puts this work to use! PickleG13 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Any comments by high profile figures go in the main article, the problem is "and here is what the cast of this years America's version of TOWIE thinks".Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic trivia; WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There's no indication of why these individuals have any particular credibility in the field or qualifications that make them an authority whose opinions we should report for their value.
This discussion is pretty clear on the nil-value of such an article; as Slatersteven noted, why is what some celeb thinks is ever relevant...except to their fans, of course. For the record: Do not merge; anything salvageable will make its way to the parent article. ——Serial^# 14:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTN, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a current event and Wikipedia is not here to host this sort of slacktivism. Let's wait twenty years for responsible history to be written upon the statements of celebrities and then this article can be developed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right lets wait to see who and what is actually high profile rather than "get my fizog in the news for a bit of free publicity".Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is this, a stan list? We already have a page for Blackout Tuesday, which is already closely linked. As I said earlier on the talk page of the protests, if we want to add responses from the entertainment industry, it must be someone of considerable following who has done something substantial, like Cole Sprouse getting arrested, Halsey joining the protests and Taylor Swift criticising Trump. If we are going to add every celebrity who has like, posted, about it, the page is gonna be long as hell. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is all a bit crufty.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is merely about celebrities saying things or donating money. This article would only be valid if it were about things like concerts being cancelled & filming being stopped because of the protests. Jim Michael (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I concede that cruft arguments have a point, but in the current situation where people are locked at home paying disproportionate attention to "public opinion leaders" which for better or worse, include the cultural elite (also known as "entertainment industry" -- I know some will cringe at Taylor Swift being called a "cultural elite" but her influence on certain demographics is indeed relevant). Additionally, this is a nice way to keep the info, but move it off the main page. I would also support a merge to include other public opinion leaders, including politicians, other public figures such as famous scientists, philosophers, columnists, et cetera. --Calthinus (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want it on any WP article? It's trivia. Many celebs are using it as an opportunity to look good & gain media coverage for themselves. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All culture is political and all politics is culture. The "irrelevance" argument is hinged on this idea that public figures do not matter. Loads of research suggests the opposite. Of course some selectiveness is warranted, but when people underestimate the influence of even low-brow pop singers to effect politics, they do so at their own , etc [1]. --Calthinus (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Swift, but Swift is just one of the many celebrities out there. This can easily be added into the initial article itself, without the need of this article which is almost just like a stan list. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: absolutely agree about the need for selectiveness -- hence why I started the thread over at Talk:George Floyd protests. But deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP -- the topic is notable, though, as I've said, it should be expanded to include all impactful public figures, not just those in the so-called "entertainment industry". The discussion about which celebrities should not be on a "stan list" (don't really know what this means tbh) is one for establishing inclusion criteria, not deleting a whole page. One good criterion would be if there is independent RS coverage of the celebrity's statements -- if is adequately covered by significant RS, then it is warranted, exactly in line with WP:DUE. --Calthinus (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jim Michael. There is no denying that public figures like celebrities are incredibly influential, and that Taylor Swift can make a Tweet about Trump and get 2 million likes from it, but there really has no encyclopedic value to listing every celebrity who have responded to this. There has been an influx of celebrities who have supported the movement, are you going to name every single artist who has a Wikipedia page? From the initial article, we have already mentioned that the support from the entertainment industry has been overwhelming, so it should already give readers a sense of how positive the response was, without needing to list out everything. If we really want to mention celebrities, mention the ones that have done more than what other people had done. But the thing about this is also that we can't really define who did what that is considered more "impactful". Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There is a criterion for notability if not "impact": WP:RS coverage. If the celeb in question is not deemed by any RS to matter, they won't cover it. For example, this means we'd keep Trevor Noah, but remove Hardwick... Noah is covered by RS, Hardwick is sourced only to Instagram. --Calthinus (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What notability is there from celebs saying things? That doesn't do anything. Jim Michael (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A personal opinion. Personally I find the obsession with celebs annoying as well. But this is not our place. RS determine notability. Not Wikipedia editors. --Calthinus (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Blackout Tuesday. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Such a list is destined to grow to unreasonable size, and convey little to no meaningful info. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - are we also going to need to start an article for the response from the sports industry? What about the hospitality business? This article's only purpose seems to be for keeping tabs on which celebrities have responded and which haven't. If any of their responses were particularly notable, then perhaps this article would approach being encyclopedic. But as it is, it's just an indiscriminate list. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sports industry is entertainment. Perhaps we can add a section on that on this page. Won't even have to change the title of the article. Kire1975 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic. A list of reactions is not inherently notable unless the reactions themselves are notable or have received significant attention from reliable sources. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if presented with sources on this page that have received significant attention from reliable sources, that would change your position then? --Calthinus (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable content (such as coverage to be had on a few select celebrities supporting BLM) to George Floyd protests under a subsection, Delete the rest, with a reminder to the article creator that Wikipedia is not a news reporter, it is not an indiscriminate repository of information, it is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Topic does not pass WP:LISTN at this point in time. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Most of the article of composed of inessential, miscellaneous responses that are of little interest or importance to anyone outside of the fanbases of the individuals and organisations making those responses. How Queen's lead guitarist or Cartoon Network responded to this uprising has no correlation to the uprising itself. However, specific elements of it (especially significant responses from prominent African American entertainment figures such as Jamie Foxx and Tessa Thompson) can be merged into other articles about the protests, where necessary. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George Floyd protests, while this is just a list of people and organisations vaguely related to the entertainment industry who have commented on the ongoing events, there are several very significant people here whose comments have received a lot of attention, and that is worth covering at the main article to a greater degree than it is already. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge a lot of these pages are already huge and unwieldy. Dividing it up into multiple pages is standard practices hence the Category:Death of George floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs)

Keep It's notable and can only be improved. Deleting it is censorship and prevents any possibilty of improving it. Merging it is unneccesary. Kire1975 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kire1975, how is deleting this article censorship? —valereee (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial unencyclopedic WP:NOTNEWS. None of the responses by the celebrities are notable, and if by chance one or two were, they can go in the main article. The page adds precisely zero to the project. Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a collection of soundbites. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or soft merge As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Trivial and redundant lists of random celebrities joining protests and giving money isn't notable on its own and does not warrant an entire article dedicated to it. It can be summed up in one sentence in the main George Floyd protests page that a number of celebrities supported the cause, if it's even notable enough to mention. RopeTricks (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. This is all trivia. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge into a new page only for reactions as is done with major international events. Idan (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Celebrity trivia doesn't warrant its own page, nor does a repository of Twitter/Instagram support. KidAd (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge: This entire list doesn't provide meaningful information, and it can be summarized on the main page if needed. 9gfg06w2 ✉ 18:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be a worthwile spin-off article but there would have to be more stuff here. Its a bit too small for now.★Trekker (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not encyclopedia worthy. WP:IAR or as a WP:ATD-M selective merge. No need for a standalone. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This can be covered in one of the main articles, and probably doesn't merit a list of every celebrity who has tweeted support or attended an event (hence not !voting to merge). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge into a new page only for Reactions to the George Floyd protests as is precedented: Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. However, list may need to be edited down or the formatting may need to be changed. --Xicanx (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Merge, are you saying we keep this page, and add the material into a new one as well?Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we do not need a list of random celeberties that have to chime in to controversy. This happens in every event. Can easily be covered in the main article, and is a clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/partial merge Fully agree with description of this being mere "chiming in". It baffles me why anyone thought attendance at a protest or tweets in support is encyclopedic content that needs to be catalogued like this. If they had an impact on specific protests such a speaking at them, that should be listed at the respective [Protests in Location] article, not listed with other unrelated musicians or actors or whatever at celebrity trivia. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I understand the passion behind this list, but to put it politely, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of list. It's a clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list can be useful, but it's better suited for a blog or something else. Songwaters (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.